"If Peru consents to negotiate on the basis of a cession of territory, you will acquaint President Montero's Government generally with the fact that Mr. Logan is instructed in that event to secure from Chili the most favorable terms which the moral influence of the United States can obtain. "The form in which the two belligerents will approach each other, if they consent to enter upon negotiations, must necessarily be left much to opportunity and to the judgment of Mr. Logan. You will confer with him freely as to the feeling of Peru, and he must decide whether he can obtain terms which he is willing to submit to Peru; whether the offer must first come from Peru or from Chili is a point which must be left for his decision. He is authorized to go to Peru at the proper time and confer with you. In approaching the Government of Peru he is directed to avail himself always of your intermediary services. "I inclose for your guidance a copy of the instructions to Mr. Logan, and also a copy of the instructions to Mr. Maney. "In case matters happily proceed so far as to call for serious negotiations, Mr. Maney is instructed to do whatever may be advised by you or Mr. Logan, or both, and to take no steps until so requested." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Partridge, June 26, 1882; MSS. Inst., A concerted movement for this purpose will not be approved. The United States minister at Lima having, early in 1883, united with the representatives of France, Great Britain, and Italy, to bring about a joint intervention in South American affairs, this action was disapproved by the Secretary of State. Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Logan, March 7, 1883; MSS. Inst., A volunteer proposition by the minister of the United States and other foreign ministers at Hayti, to mediate between the Haytian Government and insurgents, cannot be sustained by the Government of the United States. Mr. J. Davis, Asst. Sec., to Mr. Langston, June 4, 1883; MSS. Inst., Hayti; For. Mr. Hall is informed that, while the United States Government is prepared to use its influence in avertiug a conflict and to promote peace, and deems advisable a voluntary combination of interests of the Central American states, no display of force on the part of any one or more states to coerce the others can be countenanced. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Hall, March 10, 1885. MSS. Inst., Cen. Am.; "England again offered mediation between the United States and Mexico in 1847, but the offer was not accepted by either party. There have been instances of offers of mediation in civil wars; but they pre sent cases of such delicacy and difficulty as to have been seldom accepted, or, if accepted, successful." Dana's Wheaton, § 73, note 40. "There is a distinction between the case of good offices and of mediator. The demand of good offices or their acceptance does not confer the right of mediator. (Klüber, Droit des Gens Moderne de l'Europe, Part II, tit. 2, § 1., ch. 2, § 160.) The offer of Russia to mediate between the United States and Great Britain, in the war of 1812, was at once accepted by the former; and in order to avoid delays incident to the distance of the parties, plenipotentiaries were commissioned to conclude a treaty of peace with persons clothed with like power on the part of Great Britain. (Wait's State Papers, Vol. IX, p. 223; President Madison's message, May 25, 1813.) The refusal of Great Britain, at that time in the closest alliance with Russia, can only be accounted for by the supposed accordance between the United States and Russia in questions of maritime law. Sir James Mackintosh considered the rejection of the proffered mediation, whereby hostilities were unnecessarily prolonged, the less justifiable, as a mediator is a common friend, who counsels both parties with a weight proportioned to their belief in his integrity and their respect for his power. But he is not an arbitrator, to whose decisions they submit their differences, and whose award is binding on them. Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Vol. XXX, p. 526, April 11, 1815." Lawrence's Wheaton, ed. 1863, p. 495. As to mediation of Russia in war of 1812, see 3, Am. State Papers; For. Rel., 623 ff. As to the attitude assumed by the successive administrations of Adams and As to San Salvador's difficulties with British authorities, see Senate Ex. Doc. As to the offer of friendly offices by the Government of the United States to As to mediation between Spain and Peru, see Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. As to mediation between Spain and the allied South American republics, see For other instances of mediation see also Mr. Evarts to Mr. Osborne, Dec. 27, As to mediation to renew diplomatic intercourse between France and Mexico, see Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Nelson, Dec. 19, 20, 1872; MSS. Inst., Mex. The armistice between Spain and the allied republics of Bolivia, Chili, Ecua- As to mediation between China and Japan, see Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. As to mediation between Mexico and Guatemala, see Mr. Blaine to Mr. Morgan, As to mediation between Chili and Peru, see infra, § 59. A summary of modern mediations will be found in Calvo, Droit Int., 3d ed., 2 vol., 536 ff. (6) NECESSITY, AS WHERE MARAUDERS CAN BE CHECKED ONLY BY SUCH INTERVENTION. § 50. When there is no other way of warding off a perilous attack upon a country, the sovereign of such country can intervene by force in the territory from which the attack is threatened in order to prevent such attack. Supra, § 17. By the law of nations a piratical settlement in a remote island, not under the control of any civilized nation, may be broken up by United States cruisers, and the offenders seized and sent to the United States for trial. Mr. Livingston, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baylies, April 3, 1832; MSS. Inst., Am. "Unfortunately, many of the nations of this hemisphere are still selftortured by domestic dissensions. Revolution succeeds revolution; injuries are committed upon foreigners engaged in lawful pursuits. Much time elapses before a government sufficiently stable is erected to justify expectation of redress. Ministers are sent and received, and before the discussions of past injuries are fairly begun, fresh troubles arise; but too frequently new injuries are added to the old, to be discussed together with the existing government, after it has proved its ability to sustain the assaults made upon it, or with its successor, if overthrown. If this unhappy condition of things continue much longer, other nations will be under the painful necessity of deciding whether justice to their suffering citizens does not require a prompt redress of injuries by their own power, without waiting for the establishment of a government competent and enduring enough to discuss and make satisfaction for them." President Jackson's Seventh Annual Message, 1835. "It is a fundamental principle in the laws of nations that every state or nation has full and complete jurisdiction over its own territory to the exclusion of all others, a principle essential to independence, and there fore held most sacred. It is accordingly laid down by all writers ou those laws who treat of the subject, that nothing short of extreme necessity can justify a belligerent in entering with an armed force on the territory of a neutral power, and, when entered, in doing any act which is not forced on him by the like necessity which justified the entering." Mr. Calhoun's speech on McLeod's case, June 11, 1841; 3 Calhoun's Works, 625. (See supra, § 21, as to McLeod's case; infra, § 50, c, as to the case of the Caroline.) As to expenses incurred by Texas in repelling invasions of Indians and Mexicans, see S. Ex. Doc. 19, Forty-fifth Congress, second session, January 22, 1878. As to depredations by reason of incursions of Mexicans and Indians, and resolution of Texas claiming indemnity for losses thereby sustained, and asking to be reimbursed for expenses incurred in defending frontiers, see H. Mis. Doc. 37, Forty-fourth Congress, first session, July 17, 1876; H. Mis. Doc. 185, Forty-fourth Congress, first session. For report of special committee, recommending that a military force be stationed For testimony taken by Committee on Military Affairs, see H. Mis. Doc. 64, As to pursuit of deserters in Canada, see Brit. and For. State Papers, 1860-'1, As to treaty with Mexico for reciprocal pursuit of raiders, see supra, § 19. (a) AMELIA ISLAND. Amelia Island, at the mouth of St. Mary's River, and at that time in Spanish territory, was seized in 1817 by a band of buccaneers, under the direction of an adventurer named McGregor, who in the name of the insurgent colonies of Buenos Ayres and Venezuela preyed indiscriminately on the commerce of Spain and of the United States. The Spanish Government not being able or willing to drive them off, and the nuisance being one which required immediate action, President Monroe called his Cabinet together in October, 1817, and directed that a vessel of war should proceed to the island and expel the marauders, destroying their works and vessels. "In the summer of the present year, an expedition was set on foot East Florida by persons claiming to act under the authority of some of the colonies, who took possession of Amelia Island, at the mouth of St. Mary's River, near the boundary of the State of Georgia. As the province lies eastward of the Mississippi, and is bounded by the United States and the ocean on every side, and has been a subject of negotiation with the Government of Spain, as an indemnity for losses by spo liation or in exchange for territory of equal value westward of the Mississippi, a fact well known to the world, it excited surprise that any countenance should be given to this measure by any of the colonies. As it would be difficult to reconcile it with the friendly relations existing between the United States and the colonies, a doubt was enter tained whether it had been authorized by them or any of them. This doubt has gained strength by the circumstances which have unfolded themselves in the prosecution of the enterprise, which have marked it as a mere private unauthorized adventure. Projected and commenced with an incompetent force, reliance seems to have been placed on what might be drawn, in defiance of our laws, from within our limits; and, of late, as their resources have failed, it has assumed a more marked character of unfriendliness to us, the island being made a channel for the illicit introduction of slaves from Africa into the United States, an asylum for fugitive slaves from the neighboring States, and a port for smuggling of every kind. "A similar establishment was made at an earlier period by persons of the same description, in the Gulf of Mexico, at a place called Galveston, within the limits of the United States, as we contend, under the cession of Louisiana. This enterprise has been marked in a more sig nal manner by all the objectionable circumstances which characterized the other, and more particularly by the equipment of privateers, which have annoyed our commerce, and by smuggling. These establishments, if ever sanctioned by any authority whatever, which is not believed, have abused their trust and forfeited all claims to consideration. A just regard for the rights and interests of the United States required that they should be suppressed, and orders have accordingly been issued to that effect. The imperious considerations which produced this measure will be explained to the parties whom it may in any degree concern." President Monroe's First Annual Message, 1817. President Monroe's Messages of Dec. 15, 1817, Jan. 13, 1818, March 25, 1818, On the same topic, see report of House Com. on For. Rel., Jan. 10, 1818, 4 Am. "You will have been informed through the channel of the public prints of the manner in which Amelia Island has in the course of the last summer been occupied by an assemblage of adventurers under various commanders, and with commissioners, real or pretended, from several of the South American insurgent governments. You must have heard also of the feeble and ineffectual attempt made by the Spanish commanding authorities in East Florida to recover possession of the island. A similar band of desperate characters from various nations, and presumably impelled by motives of plunder alone, have formed a lodgment at Galveston, which we consider within the limits of the United States. These places have not only been consequently made receptacles for privateers illegally fitted out from our ports, but the means of every species of illicit traffic, and especially of introducing slaves illegally into the United States. The President has therefore determined to break up those settlements, which are presumed to have been made without proper authority from any Government; and which |